Food Hygiene Rating Scheme

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the benefits of the mandatory display on food premises of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme certificate.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the food hygiene rating scheme with its distinctive black, green and white certificates was launched in 2010. Indeed, I recall that on 10 December 2010, at the launch in the Bluewater shopping centre, six inches of snow fell while we were inside.

This scheme, which is a partnership between the Food Standards Agency and the local authority, has, on a voluntary basis, been adopted by all local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, except for one, which I will come to later. This is a remarkable example of a good, well thought-out, cheap idea which benefits both consumers with information and businesses with an incentive to raise standards in an easy way.

There are three things to bear in mind. First, it is not gold-plating; a top 5 score is only “very good”, not “excellent”, and the requirement is fully to comply with legal regulation. Secondly, it is a virtually no-cost scheme. The score is worked out during the normal environmental health officers’ inspection of the food premises, so it is not an add-on. Thirdly, it is about food hygiene rather than the factors used by the Good Food Guide.

With more than 50% of meals taken outside the home, food hygiene in the kitchen is important. There are more than 1 million food-borne illnesses, 20,000 hospitalisations and, sadly, more than 400 deaths. The scheme covers more than retail catering establishments, such as cafes, sandwich bars and restaurants. It includes, for example, school kitchens and the kitchens of care homes. Military kitchens are included, as are the kitchens in the Palace of Westminster. It is an open and transparent scheme because all the information about the hygiene scores is on the FSA and local authority websites, classified by location, so you do not need to be in ignorance. Parents can check the school kitchen score and families can check the hygiene score in granny’s nursing home.

A crucial factor, in addition to the cleanliness and how food is stored, is the record-keeping. I once heard someone say they that had a 3, which is “generally satisfactory”. They said that the hygiene was fine; it was only the paperwork preventing them getting a higher score, as though it did not matter. The paperwork and record-keeping are crucial so there is traceability of materials if there is an illness outbreak.

So the scheme is pro-consumer and improves business performance at almost no cost, but it is not gold-plating or the nanny state. It is a great example for the Cabinet Office of nudge policy. The public can eat where they want, but can choose to discriminate based on reliable, national, standard information. This national, locally operated scheme replaces lots of local schemes which were operating across the nation. A score of 0 to 5 means the same across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Notwithstanding the information on the websites, it is better if potential customers can see the score level before they use an establishment. Noble Lords will have seen many window stickers with a 5, which is very good. They will have seen rather fewer with 3, 2, 1 or 0. I should add that anything less than a 0 means the place is shut down. The low scores mean that urgent action is needed, which is carried out and regularly monitored. The rule of thumb that I have adopted is: if there is no certificate on the window an establishment has less than a 5. I know establishments at home in Ludlow—the food capital of the Midlands—selling fast food, bacon butties, hot dogs, et cetera, scoring a 5 which is proudly on the window display. Next door is a posher restaurant with nothing on the door. The website says that it is a lot less than a 5. That is why it is not displayed. Whenever I have checked, the ones without a sticker are generally less than a 5 score, but not always. Earlier this week—in fact, at 7 am yesterday morning—I did a walkabout in the Victoria Street area. In 20 eating places, I found eight with a 5 score and one with a 4 proudly displayed. That left 11 without any information on the door, so I checked them all on the website. Amazingly, five of them had a 5 score. Three had a 4; one each had a 3, a 2 and a 1 score. One of them without a score, in the new development in Victoria Street, was literally sandwiched between two restaurants which both had a 5. You have guessed it, it had a lot less than a 5 and hence it was not displayed.

Food is a devolved area and the food hygiene rating scheme is an excellent example of partnership in devolution. At present, Wales has to be the safest country in which to eat, because a year ago the Welsh Government introduced legislation for mandatory display. It is early days, but I am informed that compliance on scores has improved: low scorers wanted to improve because they had to display. The Northern Ireland Government have introduced legislation for mandatory display and legislation is going through in Scotland which allows for mandatory display. I want to press the case for England to follow.

I am not alone. One of the strongest supporters of the food hygiene rating scheme is the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. He saw the benefit to consumers and businesses straightaway and said so in his seminal report to the Prime Minister, Common Sense Common Safety. I shall give two quotations from his report. Page 34 says:

“It is clear that the FSA’s Food Hygiene Rating Scheme will do much to improve existing standards without adding bureaucracy or burdens on business”.

Page 35 recommends:

“Encourage the voluntary display of ratings, but review this after 12 months and, if necessary make display compulsory—particularly for those businesses that fail to achieve a ‘generally satisfactory’ rating”.

The “generally satisfactory” rating is a 3. Indeed, the noble Lord wanted to get local authorities joined up more quickly by legislating. The Food Standards Agency board took the view that if we could get a really good uptake in two to three years, we could achieve the aim more speedily via a voluntary route than by legislation, and that is what has happened.

Anyone can get a 4, which is “good”, or a 5, which is “very good”, as I have seen from dozens of visits when I had the privilege to chair the Food Standards Agency for four years between 2009 and 2013. It is not based on size, poshness, or prices. The score is converted from the regular environmental health officer inspection, as was brilliantly explained by an officer from the Suffolk Coastal local authority when I was there at the launch of the scheme. It is clearly not fair on the good performers that the poor performers can seek to hide the fact. Not everyone checks the website; not everyone is on the web. We need also to ensure that takeaways have to give the score to telephone orders.

MPs and Peers can eat here in the Palace, in one of a dozen restaurants, safe in the knowledge that the kitchens scored 5 in both Houses, although this is not always displayed. They might want to think about constituents having the same right to know. Legislation was drafted a while ago to bring this about. I think Ministers should add it to existing legislation: I do not see why it should not be done on Report on the Deregulation Bill after Christmas—everything else has been put there. However, it will need to be tweaked, if that is the case, to bring on board the only UK local authority which refuses to join.

I remind noble Lords that all 400-plus local authorities in the UK have joined this UK-wide scheme, except Rutland County Council. This leaves Wales as the safest place to eat for consumer information and Rutland as the least safe place to eat, for lack of customer information. Parents in Rutland cannot access the scores of the school kitchens, families cannot access the kitchen scores in residential homes, et cetera. Rutland County Council leaders have been asked about this more than once. I went to visit personally to explain the benefits of the scheme for consumers. They are doing the inspections; this is the point. The inspections are taking place, but not being a member of the scheme, they are not sharing the results with consumers or businesses. Most outlets in most places are good scorers, so why deprive businesses in Rutland of the commercial advantage of showing the scores to potential customers? In fact, insurance companies might want to take a look at the premiums for low scorers, but let us let the public decide.

The cost of mandatory display to the business, as one FSA official put it, is the time it takes to open the envelope received by all food businesses after the environmental health officer’s inspection, walk to the window and put the sticker on display. Why should England wait any longer? We should have English information for English consumers.